G.R. No.

197832 October 2, 2013

ANITA RAMIREZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

On January 5, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the petitioner and Josephine
Barangan of the crime of Estafa.

On March 25, 2009, judgment was promulgated and warrants of arrests were accordingly issued.
The petitioner failed to attend the promulgation of judgment as she had to attend to the wake of her
father.

On June 6, 2009, the petitioner filed a Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest and to Reinstate Bail Bond,
which was denied by the RTC.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the motion to admit notice of appeal and to post bond with the CA but
was denied. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. The CA
ruled that the petitioner failed to file the notice of appeal within the 15-day reglementary period
prescribed by the Rules, reckoned from the date of notice of the RTC’s judgment of conviction.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioner’s motion to Admit Notice of
Appeal and Post Bond on Appeal.

Ruling:

The petition is devoid of merit.

Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken. – An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for
perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is
filed until notice of the order overruling the motions has been served upon the accused or his
counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run.

In this case, the judgment convicting the petitioner of the crime of Estafa was promulgated on March
25, 2009. Instead of filing a notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation or notice
of judgment, the petitioner filed with the RTC a motion to lift warrant of arrest and to reinstate bail
bond three (3) months later. It was only in November 2010 or more than a year later since the RTC
denied her motion that the petitioner filed with the CA her motion to admit notice of appeal. At that
point, her judgment of conviction has already attained finality and cannot be modified or set aside
anymore in accordance with Section 7, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Thus, the CA did not commit any reversible error in denying the petitioner’s motion in as much as by
the time the petitioner filed the same, the appellate court was already bereft of any jurisdiction to
entertain the motion. The Court has already stressed that "the right to appeal is not a natural right
and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in
accordance with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the
requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost."

In exceptional cases, the Court has in fact relaxed the period for perfecting an appeal on grounds of
substantial justice or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances and issues.

The petitioner, however, failed to present any exceptional, special or meritorious circumstance that
will excuse the belated filing of her notice of appeal. As correctly ruled by the CA, her assertion that
her counsel on record failed to communicate to her the status of her case is a "tenuous and
implausible" excuse. The rule is that the omission or negligence of counsel binds the client. In this
case, aside from heaving the fault entirely on her counsel, the petitioner did not even attempt to
show that she exercised diligent efforts in making sure that she is brought up to date as regards the
status of her case or the steps being taken by her counsel in the defense of her case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.